Works S.F. PLATONOVA. IV. Premonition of dismay. Time of Troubles. S.F. Platonov Essay on the history of the Troubles Platonov

1. Firsting his essay about the period of Troubles, S. F. Platonov notes that the roots of the Troubles lie in the previous, 16th century and "the study of the vague era is impossible not to communicate with the previous phenomena of our life." Further, Platonov briefly analyzes the main theories of the origin of the University, nominated by historians of the 19th century, comparing them, but not one of them preferences. Further, analyzing the composition of Russia late 16th century of the English ambassador of Fletger, Platonov concludes that the troublemaker was largely due to the realities of the Board of Ivan the Terrible and the states of Russian society. Further, Platonov passes to the consideration of the actual events of the troubled time. Platonov divides the events of dismays for 3 periods:

1 - Conditionally let's call it dynastic- begins the termination of the dynasty, i.e. The death of the heirs of Ivan Grozny, and ends with the plot of the Shuisky and the murder of Falsmitriii.

2 period - which began to be the focus of Shuisky and the declared statement of him from the kingdom,

and 3 periods named Platonov: "Attempts to restore order", and ending with the Zemsky Cathedral of 1613 and election to the kingdom of Mikhail Romanov.

Speaking about the first period of Trouble, Platonov detail, analyzing various types of sources, stops on the question of the death of Tsarevich Dimitri, because, according to him, "a look at this event depends on the identity of Boris Godunov; here is the key to understanding Boris. If Boris is a murderer, then he is a villain, how he draws him Karamzin; if not, he is one of the sympathetic Moscow kings. " Comprehensively disassembling this issue, Platonov does not make unambiguous conclusions, but at the same time clearly inclined to the innocence of Boris.

Further, Platonov talks about the reign of Boris Godunov, in particular, paying a lot of attention of the legality at the same time the composition of the cathedral and events, on it that happened, as well as analyzing the estimates of the Personnel of Godunov. Platonov generally gives a positive assessment of the work of Godunov as a policy, noting his concerns about the economic and political welfare of the Russian state, and also details the establishment of Fedor John the Patriarchate in Russia in 1588, imposing this fact to the merit to the diplomatic talents of Godunov. Further, Platonov considers the question of the appearance of an impostor, assessing this appearance as the fruit of Boyar intrigue against Godunov. Analyzing the opinions of researchers and historical data on the identity of the impostor, Platonov writes that "For the most faithful, it is possible to accept the fact that Lhadmitry - Jowa Moskovskaya, that this fake face believed in his royal origin and his adoption for the throne considered a matter of all fair and honest" . Speaking about the reign of the impostor, Platonov notes, on the one hand, a large mind of Falsitria, manifested in solving state issues, on the other hand, the ambiguous impression that the Polish habits and addictions of the impostor and which ultimately served as a reason for the overthrow of the impostor in The result of intrigue, skillfully played boyars led by Shui. Speaking of the reasons for the elimination of the impostor, Platonov notes: "Lhadmitria served his service, to which he was intended for his creators, already at the moment of his focus. From the minute of his celebration, he was no longer needed in him. He became ... a tool who served his service ... excessive burden, the elimination of which makes the free path to the throne.

2 periods of dismay,which platonic is entitled as "the destruction of state order" begins to the joint of V. Shui. Analyzing the events, as a result of which Shuisky becomes king, Platonov notes that "Shuisky joined the throne not to the legitimate election of the Earth, but the intent of the boyars, from which he had to be dependent." Further, speaking about the topics of Shuisky, Platonov emphasizes that Shuisky was aware of the fragility of his position and tried in every way to prove his rights to the Moscow throne. As a consequence of the fragility of this situation, fermentation arises in society, "the troubled in the minds, which very soon moved into troubles in practice." Platonov celebrates the change in the nature of the Trouble in Shui from the Troubles of Boyarskaya, oligarchic, in the first period of troubled time, she "finally takes the nature of the Troubles of People, who wins the Shui and oligarchy." Chronologically, during this period, Platonic highlights three main points:

1. The movement of Shakhovsky and Bolotnikov.

2. The appearance of Tushinsky's thief and the struggle against Moscow with Turkish.

3. Inrogenous interference in the troubled, noting not a gradual change of these moments, and their parallel development. Platonov disassembled in detail each of these moments, emphasizing the difference, the heterogeneity of the motives, the driving forces and participants of all these unrest, conflict with each other. These heterogeneous movements are as a result of the overthrow of Shui.

The third period of Discharge,according to Platonov, begins election to the kingdom of the Polish Kingdom Vladislav. Considering the decision on his election, Platonov notes that his candidacy was nominated by a boyars, while the Patriarch and seruners wanted the Russian king. Analyzing the events that followed this decision, Platonov reveals a forced character, and the pattern of termination of the contract with the Poles when King Sigismund himself decided to take a place on the Moscow throne. Next, Platonov examines in detail the Cathedral of 1613, the composition of its participants and events that happened in the cathedral. Platonov writes about the collision of the femaling interests, who wanted a more inagenic king and the people, who considered the ingenians the main perpetrators of the Troubles, destroyed the state. Platonov comes to the conclusion about the general nature of the election of Romanov. Speaking of the end of the Troubles, Platonov especially emphasizes the role of the Zemstvo Cathedral, operating for 10 years (1613-1622). Power and "Earth", according to Platonov, were at this time in the Union and fought against the overall enemy for their existence.

THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

S.F. Platonov

Essays on the story of Discharge

in Moscow

State

XVI-XVII centuries.

Experience

study of the social system and thesis relationships in troubled time

Responsive editor Ya.N. Schap Article E.V. Cleaner

5th edition

BBK 63.3 (2) 45 p37

Editorial Board of the series "Monuments of Historical Thought"

K.Z.Ashrafyan, G.M. Bongard-Levin, V.I. Buganov (Deputy Chairman), E.S.Golubtsova, A.Ya.Gurevich, V.A. Dunaevsky, V.A.Dyakov, m . P.Ioshnikov, GS Kurchenko, G.G.litavrin, A.P. Novoseltsev, A.V. Podosinov (Scientific Secretary), L.N. Pushkarev, V.A.Tishkov, V.I.ukolova (Chairman)

The text is printed by publication:

With f Platonov Essays on the story of Discharge

In the Moscow State of the XVT-XVII centuries (experience in exploring the public system and thesis relationships in the troubled time). M.: Socsekgiz, 1937

Exceptional rights to the dissemination of the book belong to ACADEMIA Centre"

Reproduction in any form, in whole or in part, without written consent of the publishing house "Monuments of Historical Thought" ® illegally

P ^^ zhod ^ 1 ads

ISBN 5-88451-007-1

© Publishing House "Monuments

historical thought ", 1994 © E.V. Chistakova, 1994; article

Preface

The topic of the "essays" proposed is determined by their title. The author wanted to explore those questions in the history of a vague era, which usually stand in the second plan not only among the former, but also in the new narratives. Rich literature on Smoot allowed the author to completely bypass many times described, all the well-known external details of the events and focus all their attention on the image of the activities of the circles who gave the social life and on the characteristics of mass movements in the troubled time. In a timely manner, such a task was made and was successful, let the scientist judge judge.

The author divided his "essays" into two unequal parts. The first of them is of serviceability and represents the preparatory etude; The goal is to show the historical situation in which the action of the Troubles depicted in the second, main part. If the author is allowed to call his work with an independent study, then it will not assign such a definition, in its exact sense, to the first part of the "essays". The diversity of the plots, and the abundance of materials ^ in this part, would not require a compressed essay, but a multilateral special study. The author did not have time for such a study and did not feel necessary in him. The scholarship literature gave him the opportunity to collect the material sufficient for its purpose from monographs and well-known collections of historical documents.

Five passages from this book were printed pre-in the "journal of the Ministry of Folk Enlightenment", it is: 1) "To the history of cities and paths on the southern outskirts of the Moscow state in the XVI century" (March 1898; in this book, p. 52-80) ; 2) "To the history of the Officials of the XVI century" (October 1897; in this book, p. 92-104); 3) "The first political steps of Boris Godunova; 1584-1594" (June 1898; in this book p. 125-135); 4) "The struggle for the Moscow throne in 1598" (October 1898; in this book, page 136-145) and 5) "King V. Shuisky and Boyar in 1606" (December 1898; in this book page . 185-204).

The end of many years of work inevitably draws the idea to those who knew about this work, he sympathized and helped him. The author gratefully recalls his, already deceased, teachers, and especially the favorite teacher and senior comrade V.G. Vasilyevsky. By his loved ones and friends, the author is obliged by deeply appreciation for their intensive sympathy and assistance. Finally, the author thanks his expensive students - N.P. Pavlian-Silvansky and P.G. Vasana, who helped him with his work when printing this book.

Part one

essays on the history of the pool

CHAPTER FIRST

Region of the Moscow state

List of these regions

The lands that are part of the Moscow state in the outcome of the XVI century were distinguished by a significant variety of geographical properties and household peculiarities. On the space from the student tundra and the mountainous "stone" to the rich black soil of the "Wild Field", the current Central Russia, - under the influence of political reasons, natural conditions And the progress of colonization was created by several significant areas, the features of which, conscientious by the Moscow authorities, were put on the basis of the official division of the country. It is known that in administrative terms, the Moscow State was divided into counties and parish. The generally accepted view is that such a division was the only one, more than once was due to a proper restriction. They indicated that the Moscow government, although it did not reach the establishment of such constant and certain rounds, which were the province of the XVIII century, but it was very often united for the purposes of financial and military for several counties in one district, which managed as administrative whole. It was also noticed that such an administrative group was consolidated with natural, living group of cities, attracting such an area to the military or financial district, which had already unity or in historical memories or in real living conditions. It can be said more than: even when there was no need to unite one in power of the city and the locality of the famous area, they were united by a common name: they considered all those places that were separated by history or nature for a particular relation to the special part of the state. Thus, according to official concepts, the state had complex composition, and the usual words of that time "all states of the Russian kingdom" very accurately corresponded to the real ideas of Moscow people. It should only be noted that the freshness of the historical memories of fading from time to time, and the everyday features of one or another edge turned out the more, especially; Therefore, by the XVII century, instead of the "states" of the specific pore, as part of the Moscow state, it was accustomed to distinguish between other areas. The old territory of the Moscow Details and the Grand Due to Vladimirsky was distinguished, as one whole, from other areas and did not distinguish between old specific divisions under the new common name. Savoric cities."Socaros" they were from the southern and south-western frontier of the Moscow state, from which Moscow was their military cover. These cities, which presented the oldest center of the state, were contlected later by the conquered lands of the Great Novgorod, the "parish of all Novgorod lands". Actually, Novgorod and Pskov and Pskov and Pskov with his suburbs were considered for a special area, calling these places "by cities from German Ukrainian"Northern Novgorod lands lying on the shores of the White Sea, Onega, S. Dvina and further to the Urals, called the general name Pomoria or Pomeranian cities. They were often counted Vyatka, then Perm Great, the value of which began to significantly increase with the opening of new paths for the "stone", in the conquered Siberian kingdom. These were the main parts of the Moscow Serer, the most important principality of the Moscow and the Earth of Veliky Novgorod. South of central cities were also distinguished by several special districts. The kingdoms of Kazan and Astrakhan in the middle and lower Volga region were heard under the general name Niza or Poison cities. Ryazan Principality retained its feature, and his old towns together with new border towns were called Ryazan cities. In the West, they rushed with cities Ukrainians and " polish"Standing at the borders of the" Wild Field ", on the" Polish Ugra ". Even here west, behind the eye in its upper course, the group of cities lay Zaotskywhich included small specific centers that were once the subject of the dispute between Moscow and Lithuania. Other parts of this disputed territory lying on the upper reaches of the Dnieper and 3. Dvina, called "cities from Lithuanian Ukrainian"These groups of cities constituted the first southern belt surrounding Moscow. For him, by the end of the XVI century, a second belt formed, consisting of long acquired Seversk cities, Next to the East - from the newly busy Fieldwhere the city outside the city was built at the end of the XVI century, and finally Don Cossack towns; The basis of the latter believed to the free enterprise the Cossacks, and not the discretion of the Moscow governor, and therefore from the Moscow point of view these towns were already outside the state. For this reason, the intercourse with them was led by the term of the Foreign Affairs - the Embassy Order.

Ancient Russian legends and a story about the time of the XVII century as a historical source.

Essays on the history of the Troubles in the Moscow State of the XVI - XVII centuries. (Experience in the study of the social system and thesis relationships in the troubled time).

Boris Godunov. Samples of the past.

Ivan Grozny (1530-1584).

Past of the Russian North. Essays on the history of colonization of Pomoria.

Moscow and the West in the XVI - XVII centuries.

Peter the Great. Personality and activities.

Lectures in Russian history.

Textbook of Russian history.

Concept of Smaddy. The story of troubled time has become the main theme Research S.F. Platonov. He intended his master's thesis to devote "to the public movement, which created the militia of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and formed a sustainable temporary government." However, he firmly assimilated the idea of \u200b\u200bhis university teachers that any serious study in the field of ancient Russian history is impossible without careful development of sources. Therefore, S.F. Platonov, elects the monuments of the troubled time, the composition and origin of which were not studied at the then historiography and the origin of the study. To solve the task and writing the dissertation "Old Russian legends and a story about the time of the XVII century. As a historical source " he needed to attract more than 60 works of Russian writing of the XVII century., studied by 150 manuscripts. Many sources such as, for example, the Temperator of Deca Ivan Timofeev or Memoirs Ivan Twigs, turned out to be a discovery for science. Work on sources on the history of troubled time took about 8 years from the young scientist.

In the preface to the source of the work of Platonov, the issues that he puts in front of the study of each monument:

Determine the time for its preparation and indicate the identity of the compiler;

Find out the goals that the compiler guided and the circumstances under which he wrote;

Find source of information;

Characterizes approximately the degree of their overall reliability or plausibility of the story.

When determining the topic of his doctoral dissertation - "Essays on the history of Troubles in the Moscow State of the XVI - XVII centuries. (Experience in the study of the social building and thesis relationships in the troubled time) " - S.F. Platonov proceeded from expressed by S.M. Solovyov "broad historical idea", according to which the beginning of the new Russia should be sought not in the reforms of Peter I, but in the events of the troubled time with his political catastrophes and shocks. The Moscow University, said Solovyov, represented the last moment of the struggle of the old genital "began" with new states, after which the state "beginning" tried finally. S.F. Platonov well understood the narrowness and disadvantages of the "legal" explanation of Russian history and obviously under the influence of V.O. Klyuchevsky was looking for, according to him, "in ancient Russian life, the movement and struggle of ideas, looking for concrete relations of public top and bottom, gentlemen and managed mass, capital and labor." So, in the dissertation S.F. Platonova clearly marked another, missing at S.M. Solovyov and other representatives of the "legal" school study line related to the study of the "social building and thesis".

It was required, as I wrote about the tasks of study S.F. Platonov, "on the facts" to show when and how "killed in the smoothie of the old order" and in which forms there was a "new" order in the context of which "modern state" was created. "From the next tasks of Russian historiography," he noted, "this task was to consider one of the most important things. It was she who moved me in my essays on the history of Smoothi. "

"Essays" S.F. Platonov considered the highest scientific achievement of all his life. This work has determined its place in the environment of Russian historiography figures.

The extensiveness of the chosen theme and the presence of significant literature on Smoot prompted S.F. Platonova give his book essay character and, bypassing many times described, all known "external details of the events", focus on "on the image of the activities of the leaders social life Circles and on the characteristics of mass movements. "

The basis of his work S.F. Platonov put the scheme V.I. Klyuchevsky, according to which a distinctive feature The troubled is that in it "consistently protrude from top to bottom" all classes of Russian society and act "in the very order in which they lay in the then composition of Russian society", and in the confusion they appear twice: first for destruction, and then to restore state order.

Many researchers note that S.F. Platonov took from O.V. Klyuchevsky and the main milestones of the periodization of dismay with the division of it for three periods:

1. 1598 - 1606. - Dynastic (struggle for the Moscow throne);

2. 1606 - 1610. - social (destroying state order or social struggle);

3. 1611-1613. - National (struggle for nationality, or recovery of order).

It should be noted that the roots of this scheme should be searched not so much with Klyulevsky, but in the sources of the "new chronicler of 1630 and the Russian book in the XVII centuries. In addition, Plato podded the confusion on 8 "more private moments":

boyars

troubles in military mass

start open public struggle,

separation of the state

the fall of Tushinsky and Moscow governments,

establishment of Polish dictatorship in Moscow,

first Zemstvo Government, second

zemstvo Government and his celebration.

Moreover, Platonov expanded the frames of the Troubles. He highlighted the period of hidden University, began immediately after the death of Ivan the Terrible, intrigues aimed at seizing influence and power in the palace. Open confusion began with the cessation of the Rurikovsky dynasty.

IN. Klyuchevsky followed S.F. Platonov and in his desire to look at the events of the "Discharge" through the prism of the social struggle, as well as in an attempt to identify social and national liberation moments in its history. Stripping from the thought of Vo. Klyuchevsky is that at the heart of Troubles lay "Social Returns", generated by the "TAGLE BUILD" of the Moscow state, which led to the fact that, starting with the contention after the death of Ivan the Terrible among his relatives, the troubled rearranged, in the end, in the open "social" Fight "during the rebellion of I.I. Bolotnikova, S.F. Platonov approached Smoot as a complex social and political crisis in the country, the origins and the consequences of which far went beyond the framework of the early XVII century.

S.F. Platonov To clarify the origins of the Troubles, the introductory part of the "essays" devotes "geographical review" and the socio-political crisis of the Moscow state in the second half of the XVI century. At the heart of this process lay, according to S.F. Platonov, systematic submission by the Government in the types of strengthening the country's defense capability, "labor mass".

A sharp increase in 1570 - 1580s. The number of serving classes in the country and associated with this massive and disorderly distribution in the private hands of the blackness and palace lands, dramatically worsened the position of the population sitting on these lands and caused, ultimately, his flight to Ukraine, the southern outskirts of the state, in connection with which were The first measures of the Government "to strengthen the peasants" at the end of the XVI century, although to the "complete and categorical" proclamation of the peasant fortress, according to S.F. Platonova, and did not come. " Important in this regard was given by S.F. Platonov "Economic Relief" by the owners of their peasants and rapid development at the end of the XVI - early XVII in the Banal Service. So, for the first time in domestic science in the book S.F. Platonov with all certainty was made by one of the central problems of the Soviet historiography of Discharge - the problem of the formation of serfdom and strengthen the feudal oppression as a direct prerequisite and the driving force of its development. (This topic continued in the works of V.I. Koretsky, R.G. Skinnikov, A.A. Zimin, etc.)

Together with the social crisis, hand in hand with him, by S.F. Platonova, the political crisis was collected and the crisis was based on serious contradictions between the notable Moscow boyars, the "boyars-princes", with their generic patrimonies and specific traditions, and striving for only the royal power. "Sokrushiv" during the Official land tenure of hostile to him "Boyar-Prince", Ivan the Terrible, according to S.F. Platonova, not only "irrevocably" destroyed the "political importance" of this class, but did not make the greatest task in the already confusing accommodation relations in the country.

By the end of the XVI century. All were dissatisfied: Moscow to know who was affected by Terror of Grozny, noble landlords, which were experiencing a labor force as a result of outflow from the center, and "labor mass, dissatisfied with the loss of freedom and economic ruin, her discontent was sent against the government and against the boyars and nobles . The most striking expressant of this political and social protest was the "wild field" with his Cossack Volnitz. In the current circumstances, the historian concludes, random in essence, the coincidence of "state disorder" with the "Disorder of the Dynasty" laid the beginning of the confusion.

Fresh, unconventional look S.F. Platonova on an oprichnin as on " message", In which he, in contrast to his famous predecessors S.M. Solovyov and V.O. The Klyuchevsky saw a certain plan and system in the actions aimed at the defeat of the "specific aristocracy" not only logically fit into the developed scheme of Discharge, but also stimulated interest in this problem of subsequent generations of Russian historians, among whom he found as supporters (R.G. Skrynniknikov ) and opponents (A.A. Zimin, V.B. Kobrin) of such an interpretation of the Obrica Policy of Ivan the Terrible.

Active participation in the events of the University "Small servant, children of boyars, yard and city" and allowed S.F. Platonova in a new way than it was made by his predecessors, to solve such a fundamental question as the results of the Troubles. If the Klyuchevsky cessation of Discharge became possible as a result of their reconciliation, which was promoted by Cossack and Polish detachments, "Slowly, but gradually, the population-ruled by them", then S.F. Platonova is just the opposite. "The top and bottom of the society lost, and won its average", "conservative layers of the population" in the face of elderly people and the partial communities. It is their militia "took possession of Moscow, their superiors ruled the country to the royal election; They finally elected King Mikhail "- S.F. came to this conclusion. Platonov as a result of their research.

The conclusion of Platonov about the defeat in the troubled "Verkha" and "Niza" of the Russian society was directly directed against attempts by V.O. Klyuchevsky attribute to Moscow boyars of early XVII century. "Constitutional aspirations" and consider the events of this time through the prism of the "vague and timid needs of society" in the law of providing the person and property from the "discretion and the mood of power", since the "crushed" in the troubled boyarism of any restrictions of the royal power. What I insisted Kuevsky, impose of Mikhail Fedorovich, of course, could not.

Laying the basis of the Kuevyevsky scheme, Platonov threw out of it inherent in this scientist liberalism and all that was in it from politics and did not find, in his opinion, properly confirmation in the sources. All this gives the basis to question the "Essays" of Platonov adopted in our historiography as a further development of the concept of Troubles Kuevsky and quite definitely talk about the development of Platonic in the second half of the 1890s. Based on the scheme of a keyless independent concept of dismay, free from ideological layers of liberal sense. The same line is traced in closely connected with the "essays" smaller works of the 1900s scientist. - "To the history of the Moscow Zemsky Cathedrals" (1906), "Boyarskaya Duma is the predecessor of the Senate" (1910) and others, in which he not only continued to defend the thought expressed in the "essays" about the absence of any serious grounds for Approvals on the "formal limitation of the Supreme Power" at the beginning of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, but also developed the idea of \u200b\u200bthe wide social base of the new dynasty.

The scheme of the Troubles proposed by Platonic was adopted by the modern science. Of course, this book did not exhaust the documentary material stored in archivans and libraries relating to the topic of research. Platonov carefully followed the publications of sources and literature on the topic. However, in addition and the correction of his work, he did not go. Conceptually "essays" were built firmly, and the revision or clarification of the private was given little. Nevertheless, when already in Soviet times the possibility of publishing a popular science presentation "Essays", Platonov took advantage of it. In the book published in 1923 in Petrograd "Troubles. The essay of the history of the inner crisis and the public struggle in the Moscow state of the XVI -XVII centuries "they took into account not only the literature, but also publishing sources on the topic that appeared since the first essay.

"Lectures in Russian History."Covers the period from ancient times until the end of the XIX. "Lectures" Platonov were at the beginning of the century, along with the "course of Russian history" by V.O. Klyuchevsky desk book of student youth and reprinted from 1899 to 1917. Ten times.

"Lectures" give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe general concept of the Russian history of Platonov. The historian's professional culture is evidenced by the fact that the lecture on Russian history is evidenced by the introduction to the course containing an answer to questions about the subject, the method of historical science, essays of Russian historiography

The residence of Platonov is clearly traced in the course of the main settings of the public school, the basis of which he put the views of his teachers about the "organic" development of Russian history, the leading role of the state in this process and the famous theory B.N. Chicherina on consolidation and subsequent liberty of the state in Russia. Like his great teachers, Platonov also proceeded from the fact that the distinguishing features of the history of each people "are created by its natural and its initial setting." Like they, he also searched for "Indigenous began", the "organic development" of which actually constitutes, Platonov, the essence of the Russian historical process. Such a "indigenous basis", a starting point that determined the features of Russian history for many centuries ahead is in the Platonov "military character" of the Moscow state. Already in the XIII century, according to Platonov, "those circumstances sent for many centuries, the external desires of the Russian tribe and its internal organization" were determined. These circumstances are external aggression, when almost simultaneously from three sides, the Great Russian tribe was surrounded by enemies who acted offek. "The main task of the tribe has become, therefore self-defense, the struggle is not for freedom (it was taken away by the Tatars), and for historical existence, for the integrity of the tribe and religion. This struggle lasted hundreds of years. Thanks to her, the tribe should have taken a purely military organization and constantly fight for three fronts ... ". On the one hand, this struggle "sent all foreign Policy States up to Peter the Great, "and ended in Catherine II, the achievement of" full safety and natural borders ". On the other, a purely military state organization (the reassurance of class), which was forced to take the Moscow state at the end of the 15th century (in Kiev, a single state in our sense in Platonov, and did not work out), for a long time, for many centuries ahead predetermined internal development Countries, including the famous "Trouble" began the XVII century. As a result, on the eve of the reign of Peter I, the Moscow State of the late XVII century. With the primary position of the Russian nobility, there was no "top class" of society, notes Platonov, independent public unions, not "caused by public affairs." "Equilibrium in the position of the main estates, which existed" throughout Petra I was established when a special fortress right to life and the work of all classes was equally ", was broken under its receivers. Such a serious change in the position of the estates meant, according to Platonov, nothing else, as the establishment of the "Shantehtsky regime in the country" and the transformation of Russia into a single-catching monarchy, the nobility empire, in which the nobility and no one belonged to the "exclusive domination in the state." The last act of liberty of the estate was the peasant reform of 1861

"Scientific Realism" in the works of Platonov."Myrosozing mine," Platonic noted in an extensive "repentant" note, filed by him in October 1930 in the OGPU - established to the outcome of the XIX century, had the basis of Christian morality, positivistic philosophy and scientific evolutionary theory ... In essence, I remain so in the real minute. Atheism alien to me as much as church dogma. Positivism, I was early learned, I freed me from those conventions and metaphysics that owned the minds of historians - my teachers (Solovyov, Chicherin, Cavelin, etc.), I instilled me methods of research academic work, far from a priori speculation. Finally, the evolutionary theory was based on my ideas about the essence of the historical process and led the entire system of my university courses. So determined by the Smolence, my personality has not changed from the theory of Marxism that appeared in our literature, nor from the political celebration of this theory in the Communist State of the USSR. " Despite the categorithics of the recognition of Platonov (caused, most likely, the circumstances of the historiographic struggle) the impact on his work not only of positivist philosophy, but also the economic materialism and the main ideas of the public school is not doubtful.

Platonov constantly emphasized his negative attitude towards speculative historical constructions, clearly preferring to them a specific study of historical material. The state of Russian historiography is such, considered Platonov that "sometimes imposes a duty in the Russian historian to simply collect facts and give them initial processing. Platonov and his school did focus on creating a source database of science, i.e., in the opening and introduction to the scientific turnover of previously unknown historical sources. He developed the following work order:

Identification of all written writings, both published and located in manuscripts;

Selection of independent works from the mass of compilation and imitation;

The study of such independent works in the chronological order of their writing, and then dependent on them compilations and imitation.

And only there, where the facts are already collected and covered, we can raise up to some historical generalizations, we can notice the total course of a historical process, we can even on the basis of a number of private generalizations to make a bold attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which the main Facts of our historic life. "

Sergey Fedorovich insisted on a strict actual presentation of the material, "not subordinate to any prevailing point of view", to judge which he gave the reader himself, the Platonov did not deny the importance for science of broad generalizations. Making emphasis on the study of sources, a scrupulous scientific analysis and the actual statement of the material, Platonov did not forget about the synthesis, he did not forget about the main task of Russian historians - the creation of a "general scheme" of the Russian historical process, which led our nationality to its present state.

The historian-objectivist, a convinced supporter of "scientific realism" and non-partisanity of science, Platonov was confident that "there is no need to make any biased point of view in historiography; Subjective idea is not the idea of \u200b\u200bscientific, but only treatise May be useful to public self-consciousness. " The task of a scientist, considered Platonov, is to "give society a reasonable knowledge, and the application of this knowledge is no longer depends on it." Platonov was little interested, by whom the Russian history was distorted in favor of political sympathy: "Marxists" whether in the face of "School" M.N. Pokrovsky, monarchist conservatives Lee in the face of D.I. Ilovaiski (known sharply negative feedback from the scientist on his "history of Russia") or liberals in the face of V.O. Klyuchevsky with his "course of Russian history." In all these cases, in Platonov, the party or biased points of view, not finding due confirmation in sources, were introduced into science. In this connection, a look at Platonov as a historian-guard appears in this opinion. The roots of such latchings go to Pokrovsky, who wrote about his "inclinations to official points of view in some issues before the revolution. Closer to the truth point of view V.A. Sharapova, attributed to Platonov to the "conservative wing" of bourgeois historical science, unless, of course, assume that it is "conservatism" from the historian of reasonable and objective knowledge and the scientific conclusions are "conservatism". For VS Bracheva is obvious that the scientific work of Platonov poorly fits into the narrow framework of traditional ideas about the development of historical science in Russia at the end of the XIX - early XX century. And he suggests to leave the historian to whom he has always been, - a supporter of scientific realism, a representative of the objectivist destination in Russian historiography.

Scientific activities of a scientist in the post-beater period. An old age (Platonova was already in 60), numerous administrative duties, with which he was burdened, as well as the "total everyday situation" of the first post-revolutionary years made difficulty archival and library spanings for him. Books and articles of the scientist of the first half of the 1920s. They are due to this, according to his own vocation, the "result of the study work of the former time" or the "reflection result" over long-published material.

There is information that at the turn of the 1920s. Platonov wondered great work on the beginning of the Russian state, and therefore his two small articles appeared. Ranking Platonov and about the need to revise the works of Chehams, however, it was not destined to realize these plans.

In 1921, a popular essay "Boris Godunov" is coming. The other well-known work of the scientist - Ivan Grozny had the same scientific and popular character, published in 1923 this year is published 2 more books - "Troubles" and "Past of Russian North".

In 1926, Platonov publishes its book "Moscow and the West in the XVI - XVII centuries." It was a newly processed independent part of Platonov's university courses in the form of an essay of European Russia in the XVI - XVII centuries. The central thought of the essay was that "the links of Moscow Russia with Europe were tied earlier and were stronger than to think", and by the end of the XVII century "the ingenic element in Moscow flourished in a lush color."

Platonic has never been a cabinet scientist. Auditable politicians, nevertheless, did not miss the ability to protect the interests of science, actively using such a channel as public lectures in the house of scientists. In 1923, ending his lecture on Peter Great, Plato said "He was" Great "for his acts were for the benefit of all the people, while Catherine II cannot be considered" Great ", for defended the interests of one noble class" . Ovation answered the hall to this clear hint. Platonov's longtime interest in Peter I was resulted in 1925 in a book about him, in which he summed up his reflection on the personality and time of the converter of Russia. No new ideas did not contain a book. Yes, it was not part of Platonov's plans. The "nail" of the book is in the controversy of Platonov with the official Soviet historiography, and as an object of criticism of Creative Platonic Platonic, not "Marxist" of Pokrovsky, but "rebuilt" writers A.N. Tolstoy and B.A. Pilnyak, in the stories of which the image of Peter I was represented in the form of a "dirty and patient drunk, devoid of common sense and alien to all sorts of decency."

Criticia A.N. Tolstoy and B.I. Pilnyak and in every possible way to Peter I as a "incorruptible and stern and honest worker for the benefit of general", Platonov well understood that in this case they performed a "social order", led to the "official line", aimed at exposing the realcation of the regions just overthrown dynasty. The hot defense of the personality of the "mighty person himself" of their era was clearly not by time. It was a challenge. That is how it regarded the book of Platonov censorship, forbid it to publish it. Platonov did not have anything to do how to appeal to the Presidium of the Academy. In his earnings note, he was forced to state, the prohibition of the publication of the book was a violation of not only his "private interest", but also by the manifestation of a relationship, little acceptable for all in general those who are the title of academician. " "No politics," Platonov noted, "there is no book in my book." My attitude to Peter does not go to neither in panechnic, nor in pamphlet. I think it is scientifically objective. " The conflict was settled, the book saw the light.

The scientific interests of Platonov the second half of the 1920s. were associated with the Petrovsk epoch. Large works of Platonov at this time no longer wrote, limited to small etudes. An important place among them belongs to the so-called "household" history of the first quarter of the 17th century: "Berg-College or British monastery in St. Petersburg under Peter Great" and "Petra's favorites of the Great: Bear, Bound, and others." In the first and of them, Platonov establishes the social structure of the British, who hung in the Russian state in Petrovsky time, and forced, honesty the king's strangers, go to the institution for the sample of the "Complete and All-Emergency Cathedral" of their own jester "drunk collegium". Having devoted his second job to the study of the Schutsky environment of Peter I, Platonov brings the reader to the important conclusion that, despite the radicalism of Peter's transformations in the private life of the royal court, the old Moscow orders were still stronger.

The sustainable interest of Platonov to the Petrovsk era reflected a small studio of a scientist about the Order of Judas, manufactured in 1709 by the order of Peter in Moscow and intended for Mazepa's traitor. In another work, the "book of the consumables of the St. Petersburg Commissioner of the Salt Management Board of 1725" Platonov found a documentary confirmation of the fact of bribing Catherine I on the day of the death of Peter Guards of the Preobrazhensky and Semenov Regiment by emergency issuing them a choke detained earlier.

The last work of Platonov in Russian history was the publication of them in 1929. "The list of persons sent to learn in Italy at the turn of the XVII - XVIII centuries", compiled by Prince B.I. Curakin. The publication is accompanied by a small note of the scientist about the fate of one of the list of persons - "Non-return" Prince A.P. Prozorovsky.

Modern assessments of creativity S.F. Platonova. In a number of the largest Russian historians of the past, the prominent place belongs to Academician S.F. Platonov. Junior contempora V.O. Klyuchevsky, the creator of a large scientific school in difficult conditions of the 1920s, he became an impersonation of all the most valuable, which gave the world Russian pre-revolutionary historiography and actively opposed the disastrous trends, which carried a new one, the so-called "Marxist" school M.N. Pokrovsky. Actually this confrontation and was the true cause of "case" S.F. Platonova and the associated tragedy of a scientist - arrest, an exception to the Academy of Sciences and a reference. Unlike affected by A.I. Andreeva, S.V. Bakhrushina, B.A. Romanova, V.I. Pickers and other scientists who managed to survive to Liphethey due to the youth and continue their scientific activities already in line with Marxist historical science, for S.F. Platonova such an opportunity was excluded even theoretically.

This explains the understanding of the historian-monarchist and the "guarder", the "Bureaucratist", the presentation, not only not only due to proper confirmation in the sources, but also for a long time in the source, but also for a long time to turn out the genuine role that the scientist played in Russian historiography.

Scientific creativity Platonova refers to the number of "vertex" phenomena in Russian historiography. Never in the latitude of the production and circle of the sources used, nor in the depth and thoroughness of their development, the main work of Platonov, its "essays" do not have analogues in the extensive historiography of Discharge and are regarded by modern researchers as "not losing their scientific importance to the present."

The orienting researchers on the careful development of sources on "real knowledge", free from any ideological dogma and the stereotypes of Platonov helped and thereby help the maintenance of the traditionally high level of our historiography of the XVI - XVII centuries.

In Soviet historiography, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe confusion as a peasant war and the thesis about the class struggle as the driving force of the events of that time is dominated. In the post-Soviet historiography, there was a second discovery of S.F. Platonov, associated not only with a deeper, free from bias by reading his works, but also by returning in the form of a prescript of the events of the beginning of the XVII century. as civil War In Russia, the intelligent understanding of the troubles characteristic of him. And although the concept of dismays, equivalent Platonovskaya, has not yet been created, tangible successes in the study of this time (Proceedings A.A. Zimin, R.G. Svincnikov, V.I. Buganova, A.L. Stanislavsky, V.D. Nazarova, B.N. Flori and a number of others), instill hope that time is, maybe not far. And as before, the articles and books S.F. will be a reliable assistant in this work. Platonova, his high moral principle of selfless service of science, to his people.

Let's summarize all the above.

In the territorial composition of the Moscow state at the end of the XVI century, we distinguished five areas with features in their social warehouse: Moscow Center or Zamosc, Novgorod five, Pomorie, Nity and Field. The first two areas were the main "halves" of the state and experienced a cruel crisis. They were politically a typical of them, and economically they experienced a complete ruin and launch. The upper segments of the population were the victim of the execution and exploration from the sovereign, and the lower - they fell into the fortress dependence on landowners landowners planted on peasant parish. The top of the society was dispelled by an angry king, and the bottoms themselves ran, "not the mog of their misfortunes. In these areas, agricultural culture can be killed, and the trade turnover was paralyzed throughout the western border from war and internal disagreements. The crisis did not touch the pan, which became the edge of the free peasantry after the withdrawal of Novgorod boyars. His population in the XVI century has not yet had time to decide on mutually hostile groups and did not know the other authorities, except for its elected administration and government supervisory authorities. With the beginning of the White Sea trade, Pomorie revived and began to rich from participation in the trade turnover and commodity movement between the capital and harbors (Kola and Arkhangelsk). In Pomorie, shopping centers and ways were marked, and the links were stolen between neighboring, previously disassembled volosts and the "lands", for which the edge shared. In contrast to the center, for Pomerania XVI century was the "golden age" of the heyday of the public forces and their amateurs. A special appearance was represented by the bottom - the foreign land, which was just conquered, closed and colonized by the Russian tribe. On the basis of foreign life and labor, ordinary forms of the Moscow public grew there. There did not have time to affect the sharp contradictions between the Moscow authorities and to know, between the Moscow landowner and the peasant; But there mature a kind of crisis - the struggle for Earth between the aquigines and the aliens, powerfully grave the land wealth of the fertile edge. A special kind represented by him and the field on which the main mass ran out of the state of the victim of the crisis - disadvantaged people who searched freedoms and happiness in those places where there was no fortress building. The Moscow government came to the field for the fugitives, furnished him with his cities and instead of the serfdom created there the dependence of the service - military and arable. Only one who did not get into the "instrumental" serve people and left the border fortified border to the field on the field.

In the described conditions of the Moscow life, the keen contemporaries saw the threat of open troubles. They understood that the complicated state center ruin, complicated by a long war and government terror, could not pass without shocks. The Englishman J. Fletcher mentioned above in the book about Russia ("Of the Russe Common Wealth"), printed in 1591 in London, definitely predicts troubles in the Moscow state - coup and inter part, as the consequence of terror. Grozny, who excited the universal ropot and irreconcilable hatred. Beginning of Troubles, he tied up with the end of the Moscow dynasty, which was expected with the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. And about the outcome of the troubled, he said that in the confusion a decisive role - and it became, and the victory - it will not belong to no confusion and not popular mass, and the Militarie Forces). The Russian people of the XVI century did not differ so inspired; But they also predicated trouble; They even predicted shocks, but only in the form of unclear hints and threats. However, one of the anonymous writers of that time found a wonderful providence, when he said that in Russia "with the last time" the parish and sat down "by the banks", "people will start decreasing, and the Earth will begin to be extensive, and people will be Menshi, and The lowest people will be in the extensive land of Life, "and" the queen on their degrees of the royal will not rise to hold and the hour will begin to conceive. " For observation people, there was a word, it is clear that there can be no peace and well-being in a country where whole areas are ravaged to the alert, where the birth to knowing and burning hate to the dynasty and its palace favorites, where the serune class is deprived of the opportunity to serve and hosting, where The lower classes run from the dependent running conditions of labor, where finally the government should be managed in the absence of income and troops, with universal discontent and ropot. That fear is understandable, with what Moscow people in the last years of the reign of the childless king Fyodor have expected his death: his race will end up with him, the "root" of the Moscow sovereign stops, and Discharge will begin.

This fear was founder: with the death of the king Fyodor University began. The coincidence of the state disorder with the end of the dynasty was the main reason for the emergence of open troubles. The strong government could deal with the public movement and seek the exit from difficulties. But the government of the unbearable king Fyodor was little suitable for this. It was a major political talent - Boris Godunov; But he had to work with constant intrigues and emergency complications. Smoot was stronger than Boris. She accompanied the beginning of his career and she was the cause of his brief death and the death of his family.

2. General Troubleshooting

So, the open confusion in the Moscow State began with the death of a childless king Fyodor Ivanovich (1598). It is customary to think that she ended with the entry into the throne of the king Mikhail Fedorovich (1613). During this period of time, Moscow life was full of varying social and political forces. Peeping into the course of this struggle, we notice that at first its subject serves the Moscow throne. For the possession, they are struggling with different "power desires": Romanov with Godunov, then Godunov with an impoverished Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, and finally, killing the impostor, the throne seizes the prince from the offspring of Rüric Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. This time (1598-1606) is a period of dynastic troubles. Soon, a number of uprisings on the Tsar Vasily begins at the top of the shuisky and on the "Lidh Boyar" surrounding it. Although rebelled and covered with the name of Tsar Dmitry, who is not considered killed, but it is clear that the movement is not allowed by dynastic motifs, but the motives of the class enmity. The public grounds are reyable to the slave-owned peak of society - Cossacks - in the aspirations of the political and social coup. This open inter part continues from 1606 to 1610 and may be called the time of the social struggle. In the Moscow inter part, soon by its occurrence, all kinds of innovants begin to intervene in order to take advantage of the weakness of Moscow in their private interests, or for the benefit of their states - Sweden and Commonwealth. This intervention leads to the fact that the Novgorod and Smolensk margin of states are transferred to the power of Swedes and Poles, and in Moscow itself, after overthrowing from the Moscow throne of the king of Vasily, the Polish-Lithuanian garrison is waters. Thus, social confusion leads to the decomposition of public order in the Moscow State and the fall of state independence. The intervention of ingenians and their celebration over Moscow initiate national feelings and send all the layers of the Moscow population against the folk enemies. From 1611 attempts to overthrow someone else's power; But they do not succeed until they harm the blind intransigence of the social layers. But when in 1612, a combat organization was formed in Yaroslavl, which united the average classes of Moscow society, the case receives a different turn.

The Yaroslavl Provisional Government managed to influence so much - and suggestion and power - at the Cossack mass, which has reached the unity of all the folk forces and restored the royal power and the unified government in the country. This period of Troubles (1611-1613) may be called the time of struggle for nationality.

At the specified three periods, a further presentation will be built.

Other books similar subjects:

See also in other dictionaries:

Lyapunov, proof and Zakhar Petrovichi prominent figures of teat time. Family of Lyapunovy, descendants of the boyars of Ryazan and major landowners on Ryazan, held a leading position in the group of local nobility. Not satisfied with this, ambitious ... ... Biographical Dictionary

- "Essays of events from Russian history, composed and engraved by Professor of Painting F. Bruni" An album made by order of the Society for the promotion of artists and published in 1839. The author of the explanatory text was M. Thorny .. Fedor ... Wikipedia

Influential Middle or Duma Diak and Printed in John Ivan, Theodore John and Boris Godunov, subsequently, the rally, the younger brother Andrei Shch. Just like Brother, despite its non-relatiousness, reached the outstanding effect on the course ... ...

Son Prince Boris Kanbulatovich, cousin And the near boyar of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich. The first time his name is mentioned under 1598: at the Cathedral Definition of the election of Boris Godunov, the Mainnik Prince Ivan Borisovich was signed for the kingdom ... ... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Ataman "Thief" Cossacks, Tushinsky Mainnik, and later the nobleman of the Moscow, a well-known figure of troubled-time. An ardent adherent of Lzhedimicri II, P. was appointed to them, with the rank of slap, the governor of the city of Luha, where he was still in ... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

See Avraamy Palitsyn. (Polovtsov) Palezyn, Abraham, see Abraham. (Brockhauses) Palezin, Abraham (before the Treaty of Averky Ivanovich) Protector Trinity Sergiev. Lavra against Poles. Rod. In the II half of the XVI century. In the nobles. family and started service with a son ... Large biographical encyclopedia - a famous man of troubled time. In the reign of Theodore, John and Boris Godunova, neither he nor other members of his kind did not occupied the prominent position in Moscow. Participation in 1584 Lyapunovy together with Kicky in the indignation of mobile in Moscow against ... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Boris Fedorovich Godunov - (Ok. 1551/1552 G.-13 IV 1605) - Tsar, author of the messages, diploma. B. G. belonged to a doubtful genus, which became influential at Ivan Grozny (the Tatar ancestors Murza Chet, who served at the Moscow great ... ... ... Dictionary of Books and Book Ancient Rus